Veresses and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social services second review)

The applicant, Mr Peter Veresses, sought a review of the Secretary of the Department of Social Services' decision to reject his claim for a disability support pension. The dispute centred on whether Mr Veresses' chronic regional pain syndrome (CRPS) and his conditions of depression and anxiety met the criteria for a disability support pension, specifically concerning the diagnosis, treatment, and stabilisation of these conditions, and the resulting impairment ratings under the Impairment Tables. The matter was heard by Senior Member Matthew Groom of the Tribunal.

The Tribunal was required to determine if Mr Veresses' conditions were fully diagnosed, treated, and stabilised as at the qualification period. This involved assessing whether the treatment undertaken was "reasonable treatment" as defined by the relevant legislation, and whether the conditions attracted sufficient impairment points under the Impairment Tables to qualify him for the pension. The applicant contended that both his CRPS and his depression/anxiety were fully diagnosed, treated, and stabilised, and that he met the necessary criteria for the pension, including a continuing inability to work. The respondent argued that while the CRPS was fully diagnosed, treated, and stabilised, it did not attract a rating higher than 10 points under Table 3. Crucially, the respondent contended that the applicant's anxiety/depression condition was not fully treated and stabilised, and therefore, he failed to meet the required 20 points under section 94(1)(b) of the Act.

The Tribunal accepted that Mr Veresses suffered from a fully diagnosed condition of CRPS in his lower left limb and also from depression and anxiety, thus satisfying section 94(1)(a) of the Act. It was also satisfied that his CRPS condition was fully treated and stabilised during the qualification period. However, the Tribunal found that the applicant's anxiety/depression condition was not fully treated and stabilised. The Tribunal noted that while the applicant had engaged in various treatments, including physiotherapy, pain management, and psychological counselling, there was insufficient verified medical evidence of consistent psychotherapy since 2014, and interventions that could reasonably be expected to improve his functional level had not been undertaken. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant did not meet the requirement of 20 points under section 94(1)(b) of the Act.

As the applicant failed to meet the necessary criteria under section 94(1)(b) of the Act, the Tribunal determined it was not necessary to consider whether he had a continuing inability to work. The decision under review was affirmed.